The idea that British rule in India
was a force for good is not uncommon in Britain and even in certain
sections of westernised Indian elite. Read right-of-centre British
newspapers and you will regularly find articles and columns that glorify
Britain’s colonial past, giving the impression that Britain was
spreading the light of Western Civilisation to the dark corners of the
world. Many British history books still do their best to highlight the
benefits that British rule brought to the numerous colonies, rather than
the hardships.Recently in an interview with the BBC, Niall Ferguson,
a British historian who has recently produced a six-part documentary
series for Channel 4, and also works in a research department at Oxford
University, said that British rule greatly benefited the ruled nations
and people. To be sure, many white Britons, perhaps even the majority,
think that the colonial era is not something to be proud of. But at the
same time it must be acknowledged that the idea of British rule as
benevolent is not just a fringe idea. In this light it is worth
examining some facts about the British Raj that are seldom discussed in
the media.History is never black and white. There are benefits that come out of
otherwise bad situations. In the case of India, British rule certainly
did have some benefits, such as development of previously absent
infrastructure. Of course, colonial historians such as Niall Ferguson
will be fast to point this out:

By the 1880s the British had invested £270 million in India, not much less than one-fifth of their entire investment overseas.But at what cost were these investments made? The pro-colonial
authors miss out or even cover-up some basic points about the British
Raj, which should be the foundation of any debate about the ‘merits’ of
colonialism,The economic devastation of India under British rule is discernible
from the fact that India’s share of world trade fell from 17% percent in
1800 (almost equal to America’s share of world trade in 2000) to less
than 2%. It is a very telling fact that during British rule of India,
British per capita gross domestic product increased in real terms by 347
per cent, Indian by a mere 14 per cent. But even more important are the
famine statistics of British-controlled India.According to British records, one million Indians died of famine
between 1800 and 1825, 4 million between 1825 and 1850, 5 million
between 1850 and 1875 and 15 million between 1875 and 1900. Thus 25
million Indians died in 100 years! Since Independence, although poverty
still exists, there have been no such mass famines, a record of which
India should be proud. Funnily enough, there is no mention of this by
pro-colonial authors. It is certainly a strange omission on their part
and something they should be ashamed of. Perhaps not surprising as it
would make British investment in India seem trivial and pointless by
comparison. Any rational person would rather avoid millions of deaths
than have a few railway tracks built and some land irrigated.How did these famines occur? The main reason was not bad weather or
natural causes but rather the breaking up of India’s indigenous crop
patterns. The British replaced food crops such as rice and wheat and
instead forced Indian farmers to produce jute, cotton, tea and oil
seeds, which they needed as raw materials for their home industries. The
implication of this in times of shortages was catastrophic, as the
famine figures show.Niall Ferguson also credits the British with labouring to improve India’s public health:It was the British who introduced quinine as an anti-malarial
prophylactic, carried out public programmes of vaccination against
smallpox – often in the face of local resistance – and laboured to
improve the urban water supplies that were so often the bearers of
cholera and other diseases.Once again, there is some truth in this, but also some omission, and
some downright distortion. On the subject of smallpox vaccination, it is
well documented that before the British arrived, Indians had a system
of immunisation against smallpox, in which cowpox was used inoculate
against smallpox. The British doctor J Z Holwell wrote a book in 1767
describing the system, accepting that it was safe and effective.
European medicine did not have any treatment against the disease at that
time.Inoculation against smallpox became a part of Western medicine by
1840. No sooner did that happen that the British in India banned the
older method of vaccination, denouncing it as barbaric, without making
certain that sufficient number of inoculators in the new technique
existed. Smallpox in India became a greater scourge than before. This is
not the only example in which the British undermined and even banned
indigenous systems of knowledge, particularly medicine, creating dire
consequences.In writing this article I am not trying to stir up bitterness. As I
have mentioned, many if not most white Britons see colonialism as a dark
part of their history, and refrain from glorifying it or acting
triumphant over it. I am simply trying to combat the smug, celebratory
version of Imperial history that is in vogue in some circles. This
distorted version of history should be discarded into the dustbin of
history.This article is dedicated to the millions men, women and children, of
India as well as other nations, who perished in unnecessary and
avoidable famines during the colonial era.

Blog Archive

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Interact With This

Blog Archive

HOT News for you!

Subscribe To

Message to all my reader's

What is Hindu Terminal?

Hindu Terminal is an initiative, which tries to spread the wisdom of Hinduism.

Objective?

We try to compile all knowledge about Hinduism at one place, We try to unite people, spread idea's and aware people of the recent happenings around Globe which has an adverse or positive effect on Hindus and Hinduism. We specially want to clarify every unexplained topics on Hinduism.